Hawaii Supreme Court to Hear Latest Anti-Hunting Elephant ‘Personhood’ Push
by Larry Keane, NSSF.org, October 21, 2026
A case involving two elephants at the Honolulu Zoo could have consequences far beyond the zoo’s gates. On Nov. 9, the Hawaii Supreme Court will consider whether “Mari” and “Vaigai” can invoke habeas corpus, a legal remedy traditionally used to protect human liberty, to challenge their confinement.
The anti-hunting group Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) is once again pressing ahead with the claim after two other Hawaii courts already rejected it. The immediate dispute involves elephant captivity. The larger question is whether activists can use the courts to establish animals have legal rights that could eventually be invoked by animal rights activists against animal ownership, zoos, livestock operations and science-based wildlife management, including — and especially — hunting.
Another Court, Same Legal Theory
NhRP filed its petition in 2023 seeking to transfer the two elephants to an accredited sanctuary. A circuit court dismissed that case in 2024. In January of this year, Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, holding that elephants are not, in fact, “persons” entitled to habeas corpus relief under state law.
The appellate court concluded that Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 660 supersedes common law habeas corpus and that its protections apply only to human persons, not elephants. The state Supreme Court will now consider whether the statute displaces the common law writ and, if not, whether that writ can extend to nonhuman animals.
NhRP also seeks to move Mari and Vaigai from one managed facility to another, not release them into the wild. The appellate court identified that distinction as another obstacle to the claim.
It is a familiar strategy used by NhRP. New York’s highest court rejected NhRP’s petition concerning “Happy,” a Bronx Zoo elephant, in 2022. Colorado’s Supreme Court rejected another NhRP attempt involving five elephants in 2025. As NSSF reported in July, Michigan’s Supreme Court declined to review an NhRP court defeat involving seven chimpanzees, while a Pennsylvania judge dismissed an elephant petition earlier this year. The losses keep stacking up.
Different states. Different animals. The same push to establish legal “personhood” through the courts.
Animal Welfare Is Not Legal Personhood
Existing federal and state animal welfare laws provide avenues for enforcing standards of care for the ethical care and treatment of animals. Honolulu Zoo Director John Berry, responding to criticism in September, said Mari and Vaigai walk three to four miles daily within their habitat and receive enrichment and veterinary attention. He also warned that transporting Mari, now 51, could pose health risks. When she was under the care of The Bronx Zoo, Happy the elephant remained well-fed, bathed and watched over. Happy even has a social life with visitors and other elephants.
NhRP contests whether captivity can adequately meet elephants’ needs. That disagreement does not answer the legal question before the justices.
The Hunting and Conservation Stakes
Hunters should not mistake this for a dispute that begins and ends with elephants. NhRP’s own stated mission is to secure fundamental rights for nonhuman animals. The mechanism matters here as well. Instead of asking lawmakers to change specific animal welfare standards, it asks judges to recognize a new category of rights-bearing legal humans. Put simply, NhRP want the courts to bestow human rights on animals.
That theory raises fundamental questions about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Under that model, wildlife is a public trust resource managed by government agencies through laws and science. State wildlife officials set seasons, harvest limits and other rules governing when and how game may be lawfully taken. Regulated hunting is a legitimate conservation tool, not an unlawful deprivation of an animal’s “human rights” and liberty.
Recognizing habeas rights for two zoo elephants would not, by itself, prohibit hunting. But if courts extend animal personhood theories to other species and contexts, anti-hunting activist litigants could seek to challenge established wildlife management decisions in the name of individual animal rights. That is a risk hunters and wildlife agencies cannot afford to dismiss.
New York’s Court of Appeals recognized the broader problem in its 2022 Happy ruling, warning that animal personhood could disrupt property rights, agriculture and medical research. The New York Farm Bureau likewise opposed NhRP’s effort because of the potential “catastrophic downstream” consequences for livestock management. The same expansionist logic raises questions for wildlife agencies charged with managing populations for the public, not litigating liberty claims on behalf of individual animals.
Hunters are also central to conservation funding. Excise taxes paid by firearm, ammunition and archery equipment manufacturers support the federal Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program, which funds wildlife habitat, management and hunter education. Hunting license revenue supplies additional state conservation resources, benefiting game and nongame species alike.
Courts can recognize the importance of humane animal care without rewriting the legal relationship between humans and wildlife. On Nov. 9, the Hawaii Supreme Court should reject NhRP’s repeated attempt to turn habeas corpus into a tool for circumventing established animal management law and creating legal uncertainty for hunters, conservationists and wildlife professionals.